Chief Juſtice Parker, in 1816, cautiouſly confirmed this view of the ſubject by his predeceſſor. Andover vs. Canton, 13 Maſs. Reports, 551–552.
"The practice was … to confider ſuch iſſue as ſlaves, and the property of the maſter of the parents, liable to be ſold and transferred like other chattels, and as aſſets in the hands of executors and adminiftrators.” He adds, “we think there is no doubt that, at any period of our hiftory, the iſſue of a ſlave huſband and a free wife would have been declared free."[1]
"His children, if the iſſue of a marriage with a ſlave, would, immediately on their birth, become the property of his maſter, or of the maſter of the female ſlave."
Notwithftanding all this, in Mr. Sumner's famous ſpeech in the Senate, June 28, 1854, he boldly aſſerted that "in all her annals, no perſon was ever born a ſlave on the ſoil of Maſſachuſetts," and "if, in point of fact, the iſſue of ſlaves was ſometimes held in bondage, it was never by ſanction of any ſtatute-law of Colony or Commonwealth."
And recent writers of hiſtory in Maſſachuſetts have aſſumed a ſimilar lofty and poſitive tone on this ſubject. Mr. Palfrey ſays: "In fact, no perſon was ever born into legal flavery in Maſſachuſetts." Hiſt. N. E., ii., 30, note. Neither Mr. Sumner nor Mr. Palfrey give any authorities for their ſtatements be-
- ↑ Kendall, who travelled through the northern parts of the United States in the years 1807 and 1808, referring to this ſubject, ſays: "While ſlavery was maintained in Maſſachuſetts, there was a particular temptation to negroes for taking Indian wives, the children of Indian women being acknowledged to be free." Travels, ii., 179.. See Hiſt. Coll. Eſſex Inſtitute, Vol. vii., p. 73. Caſe of Priscilla, &c., againſt Simmons.
